Quote:
Originally Posted by waves
If you are refering to his speech here, he didn't even mention section 44. This is besides the point that Craig should not have even made his speech in the first place. Consider Martyn Brown, Elizabeth Cull, and Norman Spector with Gregor Craigie on CBC Radio @ 13:30. |
Yep. I have already provided links, mentioned in this thread, to the foregoing. S. 44 was not relevant to matters at 3rd reading, matters of confidence, etc. that's why the Clerk of the House obviously did not bring the matter up. Moreover, the Ministry of the Attorney-General is providing written guidance to the Clerk of the House in order that they adhere to the BC Constitution Act as time progresses (confirmed by Clerk himself).
Quote:
|
Furthermore, the panel iterated my argument that the law is not being broken by a speaker voting on confidence motions. The constitution, as it is written and only as it is written, does not prevent the speaker from voting in confidence motions and therefore, however likely, does not guarantee dissolution come September.
|
Frankly, a political panel would not understand the BC Constitution Act and implications thereto IMHO (if they even brought it up). Budgets, Throne Speeches, etc. are also "Final Decisions of House" (s. 43) The Clerk of the House will understand S. 43 (as he's the "CEO") and his responsibilities include ensuring the House adheres to the BC Constitution Act inclusive of the Speaker.
Again, watch out for September. We will see dissolution. I have no doubt.
Threaded Mode